|
mm: given that the debate about the iraq war has been recycled here again and again with no appreciable movement from either side--tho in this case, i think the only meaningful movement would come from conservatives, who have no choice by now but to concede that the case for war was false from the beginning and deal with the concsequences of that, both political and psychological---i am not interested in going through all of it again--but think about it--the unsc did not believe the bushcase for war. there was ample evidence from the outset, available even to folk like us, that the administration was lying at the worst, cooking the books at best, to justify a rush into an unnecessary (and costly) war.
that the american political class as a whole initially bought the administrations argument can and should stand as yet another indictment of the system as a whole--but i also i suspect that a reason for the initial credulity was that folk like kerry etc. were in a position like you seem to still be in--they wanted to assume good faith from the white house--however, unlike you, most of those folk have had to reconsider their positions---they, like you, were wrong. unlike you, folk like kerry actually faced having been decieved by the administration. you have not.
it seems to me that the sole function of these recurrent "yeah but what about clinton..." threads are indices of the extent to which conservatives who continue to support the administration--a dwindling number, btw--seem to be doing so because they cannot deal with the dissonance that thinking critically about what george w bush has done would entail.
but again, this type of conversation is, in fact, diversionary. the problem is the system as a whole.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|